Communicating Risk of Electromagnetic Fields/Radiofrequency Radiation (EMF/RFR)

  • B. Jon Klauenberg
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 274)


In general, the public has become very risk conscious, believing that it is exposed to more risks today than in the past and that it will encounter more in the future.1 Media accounts and inflammatory headlines have angered and frightened the public. Since it is not newsworthy to report that the sky is not falling, viewpoints suggesting that the readership may be in danger are highlighted.


Risk Assessment Risk Management Maximally Tolerate Dose Risk Communication Public Perception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    P. Slovic, Perception of risk. Science., 236:280–285 (1987).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. Nair, M.G. Morgan, H.K. Florig, Biological effects of power frequency electric and magnetic fields. Background paper prepared for the Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. OTA-BP-E-53. (May 1989).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.C. Brown, Commissioner-Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. Panel Discussion: How will government action on EMF affect business. The Business Of EMF. Washington International Energy Group. Washington D.C. (June 27, 1991).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Toward Utility Rate Normalization. Comments of Toward Utility Normalization: Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California. (April 1991).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Executive Office of The President, Office of Management and Budget, “Current regulatory issues in risk assessment and risk management,” Regulatory Program of the United States Government (April 1, 1990-March 31, 1991).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G.M. Morgan, Exposé treatment confounds understanding of a serious public health issue. Scientific American. April: 118-123 (1990).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board: Relative Risk Reduction Strategies Committee. Reducing risk: Setting priorities and strategies for environmental protection. SAB-EC-90-021, (September 1990).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.V. Rodricks, S.L. Brown, R. Putzrath and D. Turnbull, An industry perspective: Invited presentation, Use of risk information in regulation of carcinogens. Presented at the December 16, 1987 Workshop on Determination of No Significant Risk Under Proposition 65, 19-41.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, “Chemical carcinogens: A review of the science and its associated principles. 50 FR 10378 (March 14, 1985).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment. 51 FR 34001 (September 24, 1986).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    B.N. Ames and L.S. Gold, Too many rodent carcinogens: Mitogenesis increases mutagenesis. Science., 249:97–971 (1990).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Pool, Struggling to do science for society. News and Comment. Science. 248:672–673, 1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    V.T. Covello, Communicating right-to-know information on chemical risks. Environ. Sci. Technol. 23:1444–1449 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    B.D., Goldstein, Risk assessment and the interface between science and law. Columbia J. Environ Law., 14:343–355 (1989).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    G.L. Carlo, N.L. Lee, K.G. Sund and S.D. Pettygrove, The interplay of science, values, and experiences among scientists asked to evaluate the hazards of dioxin, radon, and environmental tobacco smoke. Risk Analysis, 12:37–43 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Whittemore, Facts and values in risk analysis for environmental toxicants, Risk Analysis, 3, 23–33 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    D. Robins and R. Johnson, The role of cognitive and occupational differentiation in scientific controversies. Social Studies of Science, 6:349–368 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Academy of Sciences. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government-Managing the Process, Washington, DC: National Academy Press (1983).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    F.H. Habicht II., “National Environmental Priorities: The EPA Risk-Based Paradigm and Its Alternative.” Conference held in Annapolis MD 16–17 Nov, 1992 (Organized by A. Finkel, Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future. Reported in RISK Newsletter, 13,1 (1993).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. Ashford, “National Environmental Priorities: The EPA Risk-Based Paradigm and Its Alternative.” Conference held in Annapolis MD 16–17 Nov, 1992 (Organized by A. Finkel, Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future. Reported in RISK Newsletter, 13,1 (1993).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B.J. Klauenberg and E.K. Vermulen, Role for risk communication in closing military waste sites, Risk Analysis, 14:351–356 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    G.T. Gardner and L.C. Gould, Public perceptions of the risks and benefits of technology, Risk Analysis 9:225–242 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    B.J. Klauenberg, Does public policy require scientific consensus? Health Physics Newletter, 19:25–29 Oct (1991).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    F.H. Habicht II, EPA Assessment Program Featured Speaker, Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting (1991).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    W.D. Ruckelshaus, Science, risk, and public policy. Vital Speeches of the Day, 49, 20:612–615, (August 1, 1983).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Policy Analysis. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. Vol 1. Overview Report. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington D.C. (February, 1987).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    P.M. Sandman, Risk communication: Facing public outrage. EPA Journal. pp. 21-22, Nov 1987.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    V.E. Covello, P.M. Sandman and P. Solvic, eds., “Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers,” Chemical Manufactures Association, Washington DC (1988).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    H. Otway, Experts, risk communciation, and democracy, Risk Analysis 7:125–129 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    M.G. Morgan, B. Fischoff, A. Bostrom, L. Lave and C.J. Atman, Communicating risk to the public: first, learn what people know and believe, Environ. Sci. Technol. 26:2048–2056 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    I.E. Kornfield, W. Subra and W. Collette, How to Win in Public Hearings, Center for Environmental Justice. Citizen’s Clearinghouse for Hazardous Wastes, Inc., (1990).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. (1989).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    C. Chess, A. Saville, M. Tamuz and M. Greenberg, The organizational links between communication and risk management: The case of sybron chemicals inc. Risk Analysis, 12:431–438 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    D.J. Fiorino, Technical and democratic values in risk analysis, Risk Analysis 9:293–299 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    S.G. Hadden, Institutional barriers to risk communication, Risk Analysis 9:301–308 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    B. Hance, C. Chess, and P. Sandman, Improving Dialog with Communities: A Short Guide For Government Risk Communication. Department of Environmental Protection Trenton New Jersey (1988).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seven Rules for Risk Communication, in: “Risk Communication, Risk Statistics, and Risk Comparisons: A Manual for Plant Managers” V.E. Covello, P.M. Sandman, and P. Solvic, eds., Chemical Manufactures Association, Washington DC (1988).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    R.E. Kasperson, Six propositions on public participation and their relevance for risk communication. Risk Analysis, 6:275–281 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    L. Gordon, Risk communication and environmental health priorities. J. Environ Health, 52:134 (1989).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    R.J. Zeckhauser and W.K. Viscusi, Risk within reason. Science, 248:559–564 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Jon Klauenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Radiofrequency Radiation Division, Occupational and Environmental Health DirectorateU.S. Air Force Armstrong LaboratoryBrooks Air Force BaseUSA

Personalised recommendations